Probation Reform Working Group report

8/7/2019 Probation Reform Working Group report

1/32

PROBATION REFORM

WORKING GROUP

REPORT

AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

JANUARY 31,2011


2/32

PROBATION REFORM WORKING GROUP

TABLE OF CONTENTSPage

I. INTRODUCTION 1II. THE WORKING GROUP... 2III. RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING PROBATION REFORM.. 3

A. MANAGEMENT 41. Clarify Authority of Chief Justice of Administration and

Management Over Employment Decisions... 5

2. Allow Transferability of Probation Departments Budget 63. Formalize Authority of Acting Commissioner of Probation 74. Lift Hiring Freeze for Limited Purpose of AppointingTop Deputies. 85. Install Advisory Board to Oversee Probation Department 9

B. PROMOTION.... 10C. HIRING. 11

1. Institute Merit-Based Exam... 112. Impose Disclosure Requirements to Ensure Transparency... 13

D. OPERATIONS 141. Require Outcome-Based Reporting on Effectiveness of

Probation Supervision... 14

2. Improve Communication and Data-Sharing Among Agencies. 163. Increase Resource-Sharing Among Agencies174. Require Consistent Use of Risk and Needs Assessment Tools. 18

IV. RELATED ISSUES FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION 18A. CONSOLIDATION OF PROBATION AND PAROLE. 19B. COORDINATION OF SHERIFFSOFFICES AND DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTION.. 21

V. CONCLUSION ... 21

JANUARY 31,2011 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS


3/32


APPENDICES

Appendix

WORKING GROUP MEMBERS........ A

LIST OF PRESENTERS ....... B

LIST OF CORRESPONDENCE... C

LIST OF RESOURCES.. D

PROPOSED LEGISLATION... E

JANUARY 312011 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS


4/32


I. INTRODUCTIONOn May 24, 2010, in response to allegations of misconduct within the

Massachusetts Probation Department, the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) ordered an

Independent Counsel to conduct an investigation into hiring and other practices within

the Probation Department. On November 9, 2010, Independent Counsel Paul Ware

released his report (Ware Report), which alleged serious irregularities in the Probation

Departments hiring and promotion processes.1

In the wake of the Ware Report, the SJC

created a Task Force on Hiring in the Judicial Branch (SJC Task Force) led by former

Attorney General Scott Harshbarger.2

The Ware Report also prompted state and federal

investigations. On December 6, 2010, Governor Deval L. Patrick, Senate President

Therese Murray, and House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo announced the formation of a

working group of Legislative and Executive Branch officials to study ways to reform the

Probation Department and to make recommendations for implementing its proposed

reforms by the end of January. This report is the result of the Probation Reform Working

Groups efforts.

The Working Group recognizes that there are many competent and hardworking

employees in the Probation Department. However, recent reports have undermined the

publics confidence in the Probation Department. While particular events may have

prompted the creation of the Working Group, its goal is not to address any specific

incidents or individuals, nor should it be assumed that the Working Groups

recommendations would necessarily have prevented any specific incident, as no system

1PAUL F.WARE,REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL (2010) [hereinafter WARE REPORT].

2 Press Release, Pub. Info. Office, Supreme Judicial Court, Supreme Judicial Court Appoints Task Force

Members to Review Hiring and Promotion Practices in Judicial Branch (Dec. 7, 2010), available at

http://www.mass.gov/courts/press/pr120710.html. On January 19, 2011, the SJC Task Force released its

Initial Recommendations to the Court.



5/32


can prevent all abuses. However, the Working Group believes that a system based on

empowered management and reliable oversight, clear promotional systems, merit-based

hiring, and efficient operations can help ensure a more effective probation system and

improve public safety.

As important as having improved systems is cultivating a culture in which

government employees aspire to comply with the rules because of their commitment to

fulfilling the public trust. The Working Group concluded that existing systems in the

Probation Department are improving under its new leadership, but substantial

improvements are needed in the areas of management, promotion, hiring, and operations

to ensure a probation system that reflects efficiency, effectiveness, and integrity. The

Working Group recommends an ongoing review of all of these areas. The Working

Group further recommends review and consideration of additional proposals related to

consolidation of Probation and Parole and coordination of the Sheriffs offices and the

Department of Correction (DOC)subjects that the Working Group was unable to

comprehensively explore given its limited time frame, but that must be included in any

conversation about improving public safety.

II. THE WORKING GROUPIn early December 2010, the Governor, Senate President, and House Speaker each

appointed three members to the nine-member Working Group.3

Beginning on December

14, 2010, the Working Group held numerous meetings and heard presentations from

various experts in the field, parties affected by potential reforms, and other groups

3See Appendix A for a list of Working Group members.

JANUARY 31,2011 -2- REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS


6/32


pursuing similar improvements. Topics discussed included probation, parole, the

structure of the courts, the Civil Service system, use of risk and needs assessment tools,

and best practices for community supervision from other states.4 In addition, various

members of the Working Group spoke individually with other interested parties.

Members of the Working Group received correspondence from various entities interested

in providing input.5

The Working Group also relied on numerous resources in

developing its proposals, including reports from the Supreme Judicial Court, the Court

Management Advisory Board, Community Resources for Justice, the Council of State

Governments, the American Probation and Parole Association, and the Executive Office

of Public Safety and Security.6

The members of the Working Group approached their mandate with an open mind

and a desire to learn and insisted on taking a forward-looking approach. The Working

Group determined that it would evaluate the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the

Probation Department, assess the Probation Departments mission and the extent to

which that mission has been realized under the current governance structure, and

ascertain whether an alternative structure would better serve that mission. Based on that

analysis, the Working Group presents the following recommendations and suggested

areas for further review.

III.

RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING PROBATION REFORM

In assessing the current structure of community supervision in Massachusetts, the

Working Group examined various aspects of the Probation Department, including the

4See Appendix B for a list of presenters.5See Appendix C for a list of correspondence the Working Group received.6See Appendix D for a list of resources the Working Group reviewed.



7/32


management structure and authority, promotional practices, hiring practices, and

operations. The Working Group identified significant deficiencies in the existing

structure and under the existing practices. Some members of the Working Group believe

that the courts management is not clearly empowered with oversight of hiring,

promotion, assignment, and termination decisions. Promotions do not appear to be

uniformly based on performance. The hiring process is subject to abuse and corruption.

Operations are not structured to maximize efficiencies and improve outcomes.

Accordingly, the Working Group presents the following recommendations to improve

management, promotions, hiring, and operations within the Probation Department and to

strengthen the Departments role as a meaningful guarantor of public safety for the

Commonwealth and its citizens.

A. MANAGEMENTIf the Probation Department is to effectively carry out its community supervision

responsibilities and earn the publics confidence, it must be motivated by a clear mission

that is supported by a strong, organized management structure. Ronald Corbett, Jr., the

former Acting Administrator of Probation and newly-appointed Acting Commissioner of

Probation,7 echoed the importance of these values. He identified reducing recidivism and

enhancing compliance with court orders as the two main missions of the Probation

Department, with meeting the informational needs of the court and contributing to the

legal education of the community as secondary missions. He emphasized that probation

officers must find a balance between accountability and rehabilitation for their

probationers by functioning as both cops and counselors.

7 Based on the SJC Task ForcesInitial Recommendations to the Court, Mr. Corbett was named Acting

Commissioner of Probation on January 21, 2011.



8/32


To pursue these important missions, the Working Group recommends that the

following actions be taken immediately to clarify and improve the management structure

and processes of the Probation Department.

1. Clarify Authority of Chief Justice of Administration and ManagementOver Employment Decisions

Regardless of whether the Probation Department remains in the Judiciary or is

ultimately incorporated into an executive agency, many of the past abuses at the

Department can be attributed to legislation giving the Commissioner of Probation

exclusive authority over employee hiring, promotion, assignment, and termination

decisions, with unclear oversight authority vested in the Chief Justice for Administration

and Management (CJAM). The Ware Report cited this statutory framework as a

contributing factor to abuses in the Probation Departments hiring practices. 8

The Fiscal Year 2002 (FY 2002) budget, enacted December 1, 2001, made two

significant changes that enhanced the authority of the Commissioner of Probation over

hiring decisions. First, Outside Section 52 of the FY 2002 budget amended Mass. Gen.

Laws ch. 276, 83, to no longer require the approval and consent of the CJAM for

employment decisions.9

Second, the FY 2002 budget introduced language in line item

0339-1001 of the Probation Departments appropriation, giving the Commissioner the

exclusive authority to appoint, dismiss, assign and discipline probation officers,

notwithstanding any general or special law to the contrary.10 The same exclusive

authority language has been repeated in every general appropriation act since, up to and

including the Fiscal Year 2011 (FY 2011) budget.

8See WARE REPORT, supra note 1, at 6567.9 St. 2001, ch. 177, 52.10Id., line item 0339-1001 (emphasis added).



9/32


However, the FY 2011 budget took an initial step to curtail the Commissioners

powers by giving the Commissioner a five-year term, instead of the unlimited term that

previously was permitted under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 276, 98.11 The Working Group

recommends further steps be taken to subject the Commissioners appointment powers to

more explicit judicial oversight. Specifically, the exclusive authority language in line

item 0339-1001 should be eliminated, and Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 276, 83, should be

restored to make appointments, dismissals, and assignments subject to the approval and

consent of the chief justice for administration and management, similar to language that

exists in Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 276, 9899.

12

The Working Group recommends the

prompt enactment of modest corrective legislation to reflect these suggested changes.13

Clarifying the authority of the CJAM will provide a check on potential abuses and, it is

hoped, contribute to the hiring and promotion of the most deserving officers, to the

benefit of the probationers, the court, and the public alike.

2. Allow Transferability of Probation Departments BudgetAccording to Chief Justice Mulligan, the ability to transfer funds between court

departments to meet the changing needs of the various departments is a critical

management tool. However, while the FY 2011 budget allows the CJAM to transfer

funds between certain court departments, it limits the CJAMs ability with respect to the

Probation Department. Specifically, Outside Section 181 of the FY 2011 budget allowed

the CJAM to transfer only up to 5% of funds appropriated to the Probation Department.

Such a limitation prevents the CJAM from allocating resources where they are needed

11See St. 2010, ch. 131, 103.12 A similar change is needed in Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 218, 6.13See Appendix E for proposed legislation.



10/32


and hampers the CJAMs ability to effectively run the Trial Court, including the

Probation Department.

The Working Group discussed and examined the idea of full budget

transferability at length. Members of the Working Group believe that under the current

structure, in which the Probation Department resides in the Judiciary, the CJAM should

be empowered with a greater level of transferability over the Probation Departments

budget. Some members suggest that the CJAM should have full budget transferability, to

ensure the effective use of the Trial Courts limited resources. Some members feel that

transferability should be limited to the savings realized from the improvements

recommended in this report and in the future. Other members believe that any discussion

of transferability should take place in the context of budget discussions.

3. Formalize Authority of Acting Commissioner of ProbationSince the release of the Ware Report, Ronald Corbett, Jr., has been responsible for

managing the Probation Department. The Working Group agrees with the SJC Task

Force in its view that permanent and stable leadership is essential to the functioning of

the Probation Department. As such, the Working Group supports and commends the

CJAMs decision to appoint Mr. Corbett to a two-year term as Acting Commissioner of

Probation as recommended by the SJC Task Force. Furthermore, the Working Group

supports the SJC Task Forces recommendation that a comprehensive and rigorous

recruitment process be instituted for the next Commissioner, who will be appointed to the

statutory five-year term when Acting Commissioner Corbetts term expires in January

2013.



11/32


4. Lift Hiring Freeze for Limited Purpose of Appointing Top DeputiesUnder the current organizational structure of the Probation Department, the

Commissioner of Probation is assisted in his management duties by eight deputy

commissioners. In the wake of the release of the Ware Report, three deputy

commissioners were suspended.14 One of those deputy commissioners resigned her post

on January 18, 2011, and disciplinary proceedings against the other two deputy

commissioners will commence at the end of January. In addition, three other deputy

commissioner positions are currently vacant.15 As such, only two of the eight deputy

commissioner positions are currently held by employees in good standing.

16

A strict hiring freeze was implemented in the Trial Court in October 2008 as a

result of spending cuts necessitated by the worsening economic climate and reduced

resources.17 The continuation of this hiring freeze prevents any of the deputy

commissioner or other management positions from being filled with individuals who are

not already employed in the Department.

To implement the Probation Departments improved mission and management

structure, strong leadership must be demonstrated in all of the top management positions.

These deputy commissioner positions need to be filled, and the Acting Commissioner

must be able to hire the best individuals to fill them. This process will require the ability

to recruit and consider both internal and external candidates. Accordingly, the Working

Group recommends that the Trial Courts hiring freeze be temporarily lifted for the

14See Statement of the Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court Relative to the Report of the Independent

Counsel,2 (Nov. 18, 2010), available athttp://www.mass.gov/courts/sjc/docs/statement-of-justices-report-

of-independent-counsel-111810.pdf.15 Office of the Commr of Prob., Organizational Chart.16See id.17 COURT MGMT.ADVISORY BD.,FOURTH ANNUAL REPORT:2008, 2 (2009).



12/32


limited purpose of allowing the Acting Commissioner to fill all vacant deputy

commissioner positions to create a strong leadership team that can effectively implement

the necessary reforms.

5. Install Advisory Board to Oversee Probation DepartmentThe problems that the Probation Department has experienced reveal the need for

increased transparency and oversight of the overall management of the Department.

While the hiring, promotion, and other rules in place were not optimal, the circumvention

of those rules by unsupervised management and other individuals contributed

significantly to the failure in the hiring process. Furthermore, the Working Groups

analysis of hiring in the Probation Department has revealed inefficiencies in the day-to-

day operations of the Department that could be improved. For example, while the

national average caseload for a community supervision officer is 106 offenders, in

Massachusetts, the average probation officer supervises only 40 probationers at a time.18

Chief Justice Mulligan noted that efficiency evaluations could lead to increased and more

cost-effective caseloads and suggested the filing of periodic reports to provide the data

necessary to conduct these evaluations.

To these ends, during this period of transition, the Working Group recommends

that the SJC appoint an Advisory Board to oversee the reforms and progress of the

Probation Department. The Advisory Board, whose membership should collectively

possess expertise in criminal justice, public policy, and management, should supervise

and advise the Department by collecting regular reports from the Department, making

recommendations to the Department, and working with the Department to develop and

18 CRIME &JUSTICE INST.,PRIORITIES AND PUBLIC SAFETY II:ADOPTING EFFECTIVE PROBATION PRACTICES

8 (Bos. Found. 2010).



13/32


14/32


objectivity. Paul Dietl, Chief Human Resources Officer at the Commonwealths Human

Resources Division (HRD), shared various procedures for promoting employees with the

Working Group. He identified the ideal promotion system as one based on performance

because such a system rewards high-performing employees and allows for managerial

discretion. According to Mr. Dietl, many measurable qualities, including intellectual

aptitude and case outcomes, are integral to an employees effectiveness and success, and

these qualities should be measured over time to ensure that the best employees are

promoted.

For these reasons, the Working Group recommends that the Personnel Policies

and Procedures Manual be amended pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211B, 8, to

institute a promotion system in the Probation Department that advances the highest

performing employees. This will require implementation of outcome-based evaluations

of probation officers, which are discussed in more detail in Part III.D.1.

C. HIRINGThe Working Group considered numerous approaches to hiring that are currently

in use in Massachusetts and elsewhere. The Working Group believes that the following

tools are well-suited to fit the Probation Departments unique needs and recommends that

they be incorporated into the Departments hiring process.

1. Institute Merit-Based ExamThe Personnel Policies and Procedures Manual also governs hiring in the

Probation Department.21 The manual provides, It is the policy of the Trial Court that all

appointments be made solely on the basis of merit. The practice and appearance of

21See Massachusetts Court System, Human Resources, supra note 19.



15/32


nepotism or favoritism in the hiring process are to be avoided.22

The manual gives

general guidelines for hiring in the Trial Court and other specific guidelines that apply to

the Probation Department, including job posting requirements and screening, interview,

and approval processes.

It is clear that the Probation Departments approved hiring procedures were not

being followed. The Working Group discussed a number of ways to improve the

Departments hiring system. Paul Dietl and Michele Heffernan, HRD Deputy General

Counsel, spoke to the Working Group about several hiring models and tools, including

the Civil Service system, entrance exams, and performance-based evaluations.

The Working Group recommends an approach to hiring procedures in the

Probation Department that incorporates the best aspects of several different systems.23

First, the Working Group recommends that an entry-level exam be required for all initial

hires into the Probation Department. This exam should be developed by HRD with

extensive input from Probation Department management so that the exam is carefully

tailored to the specific knowledge and skills required. Different exams should be

developed for different positions requiring substantially unique skills; for example,

individual tests should be developed for adult probation officers, juvenile court probation

officers, and probate court probation officers.

Second, the Working Group recommends that applicants scores on these exams

be banded. Rather than simply awarding a position to the highest scorer, management

22 PERSONNEL POLICIES AND PROCEDURES MANUAL,supra note 20, 4.304.23 The Working Group recognizes that other entities and organizations continue to develop

recommendations for an improved hiring system in the Probation Department and advises that those

recommendations be considered in any future reforms.



16/32


should be provided a list of the top scorers on each exam. This type of score banding

would increase the diversity of the applicant pool.

Third, the top scorers on the exam should be evaluated through interviews. Such

a process will ensure that managerial discretion is permitted to play some role in the

hiring process so that things like interpersonal, communication, and organizational skills,

as well as professionalism, can be evaluated in person.

Oversight of this process by the CJAM and the Advisory Board is imperative. 24

While the Working Group acknowledges that some managerial discretion is necessary to

an effective hiring process, the Probation Departments checkered history of

implementing hiring procedures requires strict supervision of and adherence to consistent

procedures.

2. Impose Disclosure Requirements to Ensure TransparencyIn addition to a revised hiring process, tools must be put in place to ensure

transparency. The Working Group recommends two steps to ensure that applicants

familial relationships and recommendations are disclosed to prevent the appearance of

impropriety.

First, the Working Group recommends that the AOTC explore the feasibility of

adopting the disclosure requirements of Executive Order 444 for individuals applying for

employment in the Probation Department.25 Specifically, AOTC should explore whether

applicants should be required to disclose the names of all immediate family members

who serve the Commonwealth as employees or elected officials, as required by Executive

24Seesupra Part III.A.5.25See Establishing Within the Executive Branch the Disclosure of Family Relationships With Other State

Employees, Mass. Exec. Order No. 444 (Jan. 9, 2003), available athttp://www.law

lib.state.ma.us/source/mass/eo/eotext/EO444.txt.



17/32


Order 444. AOTC should further examine whether these disclosures should be available

for public inspection.

Second, the Working Group agrees with the Ware Reports assertion that

recommendations play a legitimate role in the hiring process when submitted and

received honestly and transparently.26 As such, the Working Group supports the Ware

Reports suggestion that all recommendations in support of applicants for positions in the

Probation Department, whether communicated by letter, email, telephone, in person, or

otherwise, be memorialized and available for inspection by the CJAM upon request.27

Some members of the Working Group believe that the names of recommenders should be

available for public inspection. Most importantly, the Working Group echoes the Ware

Reports sentiment that a cultural change within the Probation Department will lead to

recommendations that are treated as what they are: mere recommendations.28

D. OPERATIONSDuring the course of its meetings and deliberations, the Working Group also

identified a number of structural and managerial obstacles that have impaired the

Probation Departments overall effectiveness. Many of these deficiencies can be

improved by changes in policy and practice at the management level and increased

cooperation with other state agencies.

1. Require Outcome-Based Reporting on Effectiveness of ProbationSupervision

Early in its deliberations, the Working Group realized that it would be difficult to

accurately judge the effectiveness of the Probation Department as a whole, of specific

26 WARE REPORT, supra note 1, at 47.27See id.28See id.



18/32


19/32


2. Improve Communication and Data-Sharing Among AgenciesThe Working Group heard from several sources, including Acting Commissioner

Corbett, about the importance of collaboration, communications, and data-sharing

between the Probation Department and other state agencies, primarily the Parole Board,

the Department of Correction (DOC), and the Sheriffs, as well as treatment providers,

community advocates, and the law enforcement community. Public safety depends on

collaboration among the various professionals working in the criminal justice arena to

address complex problems such as domestic violence, drug and alcohol abuse, and job

training. Conversely, the current lack of cooperation leads to inefficient, duplicative, or

inconsistent services performed by Probation and other state and local agencies.

The lack of information-sharing and collaboration on the part of the Probation

Department is characteristic of its isolation under previous management. The

Department is disconnected not only from the CJAM, but also from the houses of

correction, the state prisons, and the Parole Board. The Working Group also learned how

this problem is exacerbated by sentencing practices, whereby judges sentence defendants

to a term of probation to be served consecutive to, or from and after, a term of

incarcerationwhether because the judges feel constrained by mandatory minimum

sentences, are concerned that a defendant will not be paroled, or for other reasons. The

result is that offenders may be released from incarceration to the supervision of probation

officers who have no access to their institutional records.

The simple expedient of sharing information among the probation officer

responsible for any given individual, the parole officer responsible for the same

individual, the house of correction at which the individual was incarcerated, and the DOC



20/32


can go a great distance to increase efficiency. This shared information can be used to

inform decision-making regarding the level of supervision and services needed and to

prevent the duplication of services. The Working Group sees no legal impediment to

correcting this problem immediately through better working relationships among these

entities. The Working Group applauds Acting Commissioner Corbetts recent actions to

begin formalized collaboration with the Parole Board, urges the management of the

Probation Department to continue and expand this type of arrangement, and urges the

DOC, the Sheriffs, the Parole Board, and the Department of Criminal Justice Information

Services to facilitate such data-sharing to the fullest extent possible given available

resources. The Working Group also recommends that legislation be enacted to require

this type of information-sharing.

3. Increase Resource-Sharing Among AgenciesBased on the information the Working Group obtained, efficiencies can be gained

through the sharing of resources between the Probation Department and the Parole Board.

The Working Group heard, for example, that due to sentences of probation imposed

from and after terms of incarceration, it is possible for the same individual to be

supervised by both a parole officer and a probation officer. It also appears that staffing

and services provided by the Office of Community Corrections are underutilized and lack

the flexibility to be put to optimal use in meeting the treatment and supervision needs of

both probationers and parolees. The Working Group recommends that the Probation

Department and Parole Board work together to identify areas where resources can be

shared and duplication can be avoided and recommends legislation be enacted to

implement such improvements.



21/32


4. Require Consistent Use of Risk and Needs Assessment ToolsThe Working Group heard compelling evidence that state-of-the-art evidence-

based risk and needs assessment (RNA) tools are available to criminal justice agencies

to help predict a criminal defendants likelihood to commit future crime and to match the

appropriate interventions needed to mitigate the risk of re-offense. While these tools do

not provide a crystal ball to accurately predict every defendants future behavior, the

Working Group is persuaded that, used consistently and across the board, RNA tools can

vastly improve the allocation of limited correctional resources by identifying when prison

sentences are most useful, when intensive supervision is advisable, and when low-level

supervision will produce the best result.

According to John Larivee, CEO of Community Resources for Justice (CRJ),

the Probation Department makes some use of a rudimentary, first generation risk

assessment tool, which was first implemented in the late 1980s but never updated. The

Parole Board, since 2009, has used what was described to the Working Group as a third

generation tool. The Working Group recommends, in addition to the data-sharing

discussed above, that the Probation and Parole departments implement common RNA

tools so that resources are allocated optimally and consistently across all criminal cases.

IV. RELATED ISSUES FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATIONIn addition to the areas discussed above related to management, promotions,

hiring, and operations, the Working Group heard proposals that it believes warrant further

review and consideration, including recommendations for consolidating the various

agencies charged with community supervision and enhancing coordination of the



22/32


Sheriffs offices and the DOC. Given more time, the Working Group believes that

agreement regarding these recommendations may have been possible.

A. CONSOLIDATION OF PROBATION AND PAROLEThe Working Group heard several perspectives on the idea of consolidating

Probation and Parole. Some supported the consolidation of Probation and Parole within

the Executive Branch; some believed that Probation should remain in the Judicial Branch;

and others believed that the location of Probation did not matter as long as the proper

systems were in place.

In January 2010, Governor Patrick introduced legislation that would consolidate

adult probation and parole in a new agency within the Executive Branch,31

placing all

correctional, supervision, and re-entry responsibilities under the Executive Office of

Public Safety and Security (EOPSS) in the Executive Branch (as it is in 37 other

states)32 and creating a unified public safety system. Similarly, Mr. Larivee pointed out

that CRJ has called for consolidation of all corrections functions within the Executive

Branch since its 1991 report on corrections and sentencing in Massachusetts.33 During

his presentation to the Working Group, Larivee emphasized the importance of

31An Act Reforming Community Supervision of Criminal Defendants and Offenders by Establishing theDepartment of Community Supervision Within the Executive Office of Public Safety and Security, H.B.

4830, 186th Gen. Ct., Reg. Sess. (Mass. 2010), filed January 27, 2010. Under Governor Patricks proposal,

the probation functions associated with the Juvenile Court and the Probate and Family Court would remain

in the Judiciary.32

RESEARCH &PLANNING DIV.,MASS.DEPT OF CORR.,SURVEY OF STATES:GOVERNMENT BRANCH FORPAROLE AND PROBATION (2010). Rhiana Kohl, Ph.D., Executive Director of the DOCs Office of Strategic

Planning & Research, presented a state-by-state analysis of parole and probation departments to the

Working Group. Her study showed that 37 states (74%) place both parole and probation supervision under

the Executive Branch, 12 states (24%) place parole under the Executive Branch and probation under the

Judicial Branch, one state conducts probation supervision as a county function, and no states have both

parole and probation under the Judicial Branch.33

BOSTON BAR ASSN &CRIME &JUSTICE FOUND.TASK FORCE ON JUSTICE,THE CRISIS IN CORRECTIONS

AND SENTENCING IN MASSACHUSETTS,REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE TASK FORCE ON JUSTICE

(Feb. 1991), available athttp://www.bostonbar.org/prs/reports/justice0291.pdf.

http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=gov3terminal&L=3&L0=Home&L1=Legislation+%26+Executive+Orders&L2=Legislation&sid=Agov3&b=terminalcontent&f=legislation_legis_012710commsupervision&csid=Agov3http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=gov3terminal&L=3&L0=Home&L1=Legislation+%26+Executive+Orders&L2=Legislation&sid=Agov3&b=terminalcontent&f=legislation_legis_012710commsupervision&csid=Agov3http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=gov3terminal&L=3&L0=Home&L1=Legislation+%26+Executive+Orders&L2=Legislation&sid=Agov3&b=terminalcontent&f=legislation_legis_012710commsupervision&csid=Agov3http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=gov3terminal&L=3&L0=Home&L1=Legislation+%26+Executive+Orders&L2=Legislation&sid=Agov3&b=terminalcontent&f=legislation_legis_012710commsupervision&csid=Agov3


23/32


coordination and information flow throughout the corrections system and the need for a

sustainable model that will flourish independent of the individual commissioners and

other officials involved. He also pointed out the efficiencies that could be achieved

through consolidation, such as elimination of dual supervision of offenders on both

probation and parole and the potential to focus funding on high-risk offenders.

Chief Justice Mulligan and Acting Commissioner Corbett shared that they believe

probation should remain in the Judiciary. Acting Commissioner Corbett and others cited

the existence of strong ties between the Probation Department and the Judiciary as an

important factor weighing against consolidation. Acting Commissioner Corbett also

pointed out, and others agreed, that simply creating a robust and effective management

structure at the Probation Department could succeed in correcting the Departments flaws

without the implementation of other significant changes. Those who support Acting

Commissioner Corbetts position suggest that he should be given the opportunity to

implement improvements at the Department before any movement of the Department to a

different branch is considered.

Finally, others suggest that the locations of Probation and Parole are not

fundamental to their effective functioning. CRJs most recent report, entitledAdopting

Effective Probation Practices, examines the current structure in Massachusetts as well as

the models in other states.34 The report describes the elements necessary for an effective

and efficient criminal justice system, regardless of where it resides, but concludes that

systemic reforms to the Probation Department are necessary for Massachusetts to make

major strides in reducing recidivism and improving public safety.

34See generally, PRIORITIES AND PUBLIC SAFETY II:ADOPTING EFFECTIVE PROBATION PRACTICES, supra

note 18.



24/32


Thus, while the Working Group did not have sufficient time to fully analyze the

consolidation approach, it recommends that the efficacy of consolidation be evaluated

under the proposed information- and resource-sharing regimes outlined in Part III.D. and

that further consideration be given to whether consolidation would be beneficial.

B. COORDINATION OF SHERIFFSOFFICES AND DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONSheriffs are independently elected and are responsible for running the jails and

houses of correction. While Sheriffs offices depend on state funding, they are

independent of the DOC and not subject to the control of EOPSS. There is no formal

mechanism for sharing information and transition planning between the Sheriffs and

Probation similar to that which takes place between the DOC and Parole, nor is there an

ability to transfer inmates readily between the Sheriffs and the DOC so that they receive

the most appropriate custodial setting and programming. Sheriffs also use different risk

assessment tools than those used by Probation and Parole. The Working Group

determined that there is a need for enhanced communication and data-sharing between

Sheriffs and other corrections and community supervision agencies, as well as consistent

use of the same risk and needs assessment tools among the agencies. As such, the

Working Group recommends that consideration be given to ways in which these

agencies, under the direction and guidance of EOPSS, could coordinate and streamline

their efforts to provide more efficient and comprehensive services.

V. CONCLUSIONThe Working Group urges the Probation Department to promptly adopt the

operational recommendations set forth in Part III and calls for the prompt enactment of



25/32


the legislation suggested in Appendix E to address the Probation Departments immediate

and short-term deficiencies and to restore the publics confidence. The Working Group

supports the filing of additional legislation, the implementation of regulations, and the

adoption of policies to reform community supervision more generally and improve public

safety while at the same time reducing spending on corrections. The Working Group also

recommends further review of additional reforms that time constraints prevented it from

fully exploring. Each member of the Working Group is committed to continuing to work

on these issues and to collaborating with other groups to produce meaningful reform so

that a positive culture marked by accountability can be restored.



26/32

PROBATION REFORM WORKING GROUP APPENDIX A

WORKING GROUP MEMBERS

F. Jay Barrows

State Representative, Commonwealth of Massachusetts

Cynthia S. Creem

State Senator, Commonwealth of Massachusetts

Patricia A. Haddad


Brian A. Joyce


Michael R. Knapik


Gregory I. Massing

General Counsel, Executive Office of Public Safety and Security

Byron Rushing


David E. Sullivan

General Counsel, Executive Office for Administration and Finance

E. Abim Thomas

Deputy Chief Counsel, Office of the Governor



27/32

PROBATION REFORM WORKING GROUP APPENDIX B

LIST OF PRESENTERS

Ronald Corbett, Jr., Acting Administrator of Probation Timothy Dooling, Acting Executive Director of the Parole Board Robert Mulligan, Chief Justice for Administration and Management Rhiana Kohl, Ph.D, Executive Director of the Office of Strategic Planning &

Research at the Massachusetts Department of Correction

John Larivee, CEO, Community Resources for Justice Paul Dietl, Chief Human Resources Officer

Michele Heffernan, Deputy General Counsel of the Human Resources Division

Members of the Supreme Judicial Court Task Force on Hiring in the JudicialBranch, including Scott Harshbarger, Ruth Ellen Fitch, Bill Leahy, SusanProsnitz, Harry Spence, and Stephen Wright

Jack Cinquegrana, former President, Boston Bar Association Donald R. Frederico, President, Boston Bar Association Kathleen Joyce, Director of Government Relations, Boston Bar Association Ed P. Ryan, Jr., former President, Massachusetts Bar Association Martin W. Healy, Chief Operating Officer, Massachusetts Bar Association



28/32

PROBATION REFORM WORKING GROUP APPENDIX C

LIST OF CORRESPONDENCE

Letter from Matthew C. Regan, Former First Assistant Chief Probation Officer of BostonMunicipal Court, to Governor Deval Patrick (Dec. 1, 2010).

Letter from Cynthia Stone Creem, State Senator, to Probation Reform Working GroupMembers (Dec. 14, 2010).

Letter from David J. Holway, President, National Association of Government Employees,

to E. Abim Thomas, First Assistant Deputy Legal Counsel, Office of the Governor (Dec.14, 2010).

Letter from the Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court to Governor Deval L. Patrick,Senate President Therese Murray & Speaker of the House of Representatives Robert A.

DeLeo (Dec. 14, 2010).

Letter from Donald R. Frederico, President, Boston Bar Association, to Governor DevalL. Patrick, Senate President Therese Murray & Speaker of the House of Representatives

Robert A. DeLeo (Dec. 16, 2010).

Letter from Donald R. Frederico, President, Boston Bar Association, to E. Abim Thomas,

First Assistant Deputy Legal Counsel, Office of the Governor (Dec. 17, 2010).

Letter from Denise Squillante, President, Massachusetts Bar Association, to Governor

Deval L. Patrick, Senate President Therese Murray & Speaker of the House of

Representatives Robert A. DeLeo (Dec. 22, 2010).

Letter from Rita F. McCarthy, President, Massachusetts Chief Probation OfficersAssociation, to E. Abim Thomas, First Assistant Deputy Legal Counsel, Office of theGovernor (Jan. 11, 2011).

Letter from Roderick L. Ireland, Chief Justice of the Supreme Judicial Court, to Governor

Deval Patrick, Senate President Therese Murray & Speaker of the House ofRepresentatives Robert A. DeLeo (Jan. 21, 2011).



29/32

PROBATION REFORM WORKING GROUP APPENDIX D

LIST OF RESOURCES

Boston Bar Association & Crime & Justice Foundation Task Force on Justice, The Crisis

in Corrections and Sentencing in Massachusetts, Report and recommendations of the

Task Force on Justice (Feb. 1991).

Council of State Governments,Resolution for Functional Standards for Automated Case

Management Systems for Probation (2003), available at

http://www.csg.org/knowledgecenter/docs/APPA.pdf.

Court Management Advisory Board, Fourth Annual Report: 2008 (2009).

Court Management Advisory Board,Annual Report: 20092010 (2010).

Establishing Within the Executive Branch the Disclosure of Family Relationships with

Other State Employees, Mass. Exec. Order No. 444 (Jan. 9, 2003), available at

http://www.law lib.state.ma.us/source/mass/eo/eotext/EO444.txt.

Executive Office of Public Safety & Security, Correcting Community Supervision:

Blueprint for a Safer Commonwealth (2009).

Harbridge House,Justice Endangered: A Management Study of the Massachusetts Trial

Court(1991).

Human Resources Department, Personnel Policies and Procedures Manual, available at

http://www.mass.gov/courts/admin/hr/tableofcontents.html.

Kristy Danford & Len Engel, Crime & Justice Institute at Community Resources forJustice,Evidence-Based Practice and Consolidating Corrections Agencies (Dec. 2010).

Len Engel, Crime & Justice Institute, Priorities and Public Safety: Reentry and theRising Costs of our Corrections System (Bos. Found. 2009).

Len Engel et al., Crime & Justice Institute, Priorities and Public Safety II: AdoptingEffective Probation Practices (Bos. Found. 2010).

Linda Layton et al., American Probation & Parole Association & Council of State

Governments,An Elected Officials Guide to Community Correctional Options (2d ed.

2010).

Massachusetts Court System, Human Resources, http://www.mass.gov/courts/admin

/hr.html.

Massachusetts Parole Board, Parole Process Flow Sheet(2010).

Massachusetts Probation Service, Statewide Fact Sheet 2010 (2010).



30/32


Massachusetts Trial Court,Job Descriptions and Qualifications for Probation Employees

(Dec. 2010).

Memorandum from Francis Wall, Deputy Commissioner of Probation, on

Parole/Probation Collaborative Tier III Group to Ronald Corbett, Acting Administrator ofProbation. (Nov. 17, 2010).

Memorandum from Ronald Corbett & Mark A. Conrad on Collaborative Initiative of

Probation and Parole to Statewide Parole Staff (Sept. 7, 2010).

Office of the Commissioner of Probation,Breakdown of Probation Employees (Dec.

2010).

Office of the Commissioner of Probation, Caseload Breakdown by District Court andProbation Officer(2010).

Office of the Commissioner of Probation, Organizational Chart(Dec. 2010).

Office of the Commissioner of Probation, Supervision Caseload for November 2010

(2010).

Paul F. Ware,Report of the Independent Counsel (2010).

Research & Planning Division, Massachusetts Department of Corrections, Survey ofStates: Government Branch for Parole and Probation (2010).

Rhiana Kohl, Massachusetts Department of Correction,Risk and Need Assessments (Dec.

2010).

Ronald Corbett, Acting Administrator of Probation, Mark Conrad, Chairman of Parole

Board, Probation-Parole Collaborative Tier Initiatives (Oct. 4, 2010).

Scott Harshbarger et al., Supreme Judicial Court Task Force on Hiring in the Judicial

Branch,Initial Recommendations to the Court(2011).

Statement of the Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court Relative to the Report of the

Independent Counsel (Nov. 18, 2010), available athttp://www.mass.gov/courts/sjc/docs

/statement-of-justices-report-of-independent-counsel-111810.pdf.

Stephen Bocko et al.,Massachusetts Probation Service: GPS Sex Offender Recidivism

Study (2010).

Superior Court Department, Sample Order of Probation Conditions (2010).

JANUARY 31,2011 -ii- REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS


31/32


Thomas F. White, Offender Risks and Needs Assessment Technical Assistance Request-

Initial Meeting Summary and Recommendations (2010).

Timothy V. Dooling, Massachusetts Parole Board, Overview of Massachusetts Parole

Board(Dec. 20, 2010).

Trial Court of the Commonwealth, District Court Department, Sample Conditions of

Probation (2010).

Trial Court of Massachusetts, Juvenile Court Department, Sample Order of Juvenile

Probation Conditions (2010).

JANUARY 31,2011 -iii- REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS


32/32

PROBATION REFORM WORKING GROUP APPENDIX E

PROPOSED LEGISLATION

Amends Line Item 0339-1001, section 6 of chapter 218 of the General Laws, and

section 83 of chapter 276 of the General Laws to make the Commissioner of

Probations authority to appoint, dismiss, discipline, and assign, subject to approval

by the Chief Justice for Administration and Management.

SECTION 1. Line Item 0339-1001 of section 2 of chapter 131 of the acts of 2010 is

hereby amended by striking out the words that notwithstanding any general or speciallaw or rule or regulation to the contrary, the commissioner, subject to appropriation, shall

have exclusive authority to appoint, dismiss, assign and discipline probation officers,

associate probation officers, probation officers-in-charge, assistant chief probationofficers and chief probation officers; provided further,.

SECTION 2. Section 6 of chapter 218 of the General Laws, as appearing in the 2008

Official Edition, is hereby amended by striking out, in lines 54 and 55, the words ,further, that the commissioner of probation and inserting in place thereof the following

words:- further, that the commissioner of probation, subject to approval by the chiefjustice for administration and management.

SECTION 3. Chapter 276 of the General Laws, as so appearing, is hereby amended by

striking out section 83 and inserting in place thereof the following section:-

Section 83. Subject to appropriation, the commissioner of probation, subject to the

approval by the chief justice for administration and management, may appoint, dismissand assign such probation officers to the several sessions of the trial court as he deems

necessary. In a court having 2 or more probation officers, the commissioner, subject tothe approval of the chief justice for administration and management, may designate 1probation officer to serve as chief probation officer and may designate other probation

officers to serve as assistant chief probation officers, as he deems necessary for the

effective administration of justice; provided, however, that the commissioner may

suspend or discipline any such probation officer, who may appeal such suspension ordiscipline to the chief justice for administration and management or the commissioner

may recommend the discharge of a probation officer to the chief justice for

administration and management and the chief justice may discharge the probation officerafter a hearing. The compensation of probation officers in the trial court shall be paid by

the commonwealth according to schedules established in section 99B or in an applicable

collective bargaining agreement.

Probation Reform Working Group report

Documents